Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2026

L.A. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:26-cv-02410
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In L.A. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by August 20, 2026.

Who this affects

L.A., individually and on behalf of R.H., and the New York City Department of Education.

What happened

L.A., individually and on behalf of R.H., sued the New York City Department of Education. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The Department told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and requested restoration by August 20, 2026.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request is made by August 20, 2026, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
L.A. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:26-cv-02410
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 20, 2026

Background

The court received a letter from the New York City Department of Education stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties could not memorialize their settlement in writing, but the application had to be made by August 20, 2026. The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The action was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle, subject to the stated deadline and conditions. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.